Recent studies indicate that partisan electoral interventions, a situation where a foreign power tries to determine the election results in another country, can have significant effects on the election results in the targeted country as well as other important influences. Nevertheless, research on this topic has been hindered by a lack of systematic data of electoral interventions. In this article, I introduce the Partisan Electoral Intervention by the Great Powers dataset (PEIG), which provides data on all such interventions by the US and the USSR/Russia between 1946 and 2000. After describing the dataset construction process, I note some interesting patterns in the data, a few of which stand in contrast to claims made about electoral interventions in the public sphere and give an example of PEIG’s utility. I then describe some applications of PEIG for research on electoral interventions in particular and for peace research in general.

Whoever wins the U.S. presidential election will have a hard time dealing with Russia: The relationship between the two countries is in tatters. Donald Trump obviously doesn’t have any answers. Yet, like most of my fellow Russians who follow the race, I also have misgivings about Hillary Clinton -- even though, unlike most of them, I am an active opponent of President Vladimir Putin.

The last time an independent polling organization -- the Levada Center -- polled Russians on the U.S. presidential candidates was in August. Only 12 percent said they were following the election closely, and 73 percent said they’d heard something about it. Among the news junkies, 39 percent said Donald Trump would be a better U.S. president for Russia, while 15 percent said Clinton would be better. The state-owned pollster, VTsIOM, did its latest poll in July, finding about the same proportion of curious Russians. That survey revealed that 34 percent of those who’d heard of Trump thought Russia-U.S. relations would improve under him; only 6 percent of those who’d heard about Clinton believed that of her.

In part, that can be explained by the effect of Putin’s propaganda machine, which has been giving Trump more favorable coverage than Clinton for two reasons. First, Russian state TV always backs populist rebels in any Western country on the theory that whatever weakens the Western establishment is good for Russia. Second, Putin and Clinton openly dislike each other. She says she sees in him a cold-blooded, self-enriching KGB agent and a bully; he remembers how she appeared to encourage protests against him in 2011.

Those reasons matter little to me. I believe Russia’s place is in an open, free-thinking Western world, and that nationalist populists, including Trump, are destroying that vision of the West. I took part in the 2011 protests and I agree with Clinton’s assessment of Putin. And yet I, too, think a Clinton presidency would be bad for Russia -- and that would ultimately hurt the U.S. as well.

Clinton’s positions on Russia are based on simplistic ideological lines. In a campaign speech in late August, she branded Putin “the grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism” -- the brand espoused by anti-immigrant political parties in Europe. Indeed, if one took at face value Putin’s recent efforts to build a “conservative” ideology as an intellectual basis for its rule and his propaganda’s backing of European nationalists, such a description would be justified. Nothing in Russia can be taken at face value, however.

Putin’s domestic ideology, based on Orthodox Christianity and imperial patriotism, is skin-deep and inconsistent. Only 4 percent of Russians regularly attend church, even though 72 percent consider themselves Orthodox Christians. It’s difficult to impose fundamentalist values on a society that is used to the Soviet Union’s hostility to religion, has three times the abortion rate of the U.S. and contains large and autonomous Muslim and Buddhist populations.

Putin, who has donated a month’s salary to Moscow’s Jewish museum and who has opened mosques, is not an ideological ally of European nationalists like the National Front in France, who manage to be both anti-Semitic and Islamophobic. Right-wing populists talk with dread of Muslim “no-go zones” in European cities; Putin’s Russia has whole regions, notably Chechnya, where Russian laws are applied only if they are consistent with local and religious traditions. Putin’s government has been harsher than most European ones on ethnic nationalism, suppressing neo-Nazi groups with as much cruelty as it has shown Islamist terrorists.

When he came to power, Putin’s own ideology was the usual post-Soviet mix of economic neoliberalism, Communist internationalism and the veneration of a Russian history much rewritten by the Soviets. That it has acquired a veneer of right-wing nationalism is in large part the fault of Western leaders who, like Clinton, needed to place Putin on their mental maps and couldn’t quite do it. He was a post-Soviet chameleon, picking the colors that suited him at any given moment. That’s what happened with “conservatism”: He put on the colors of the camp that would accept him and not try to tell him what to do.

Putin, who has trampled on the Russian constitution in the most egregious ways, is an embodiment of its Article 13: “No ideology can be established as a government-imposed or obligatory one.”

The mismatch between an ideological Clinton and an opportunist Putin is fraught. Clinton has spoken many times about the need to undermine and contain dictators. In an interview with The Atlantic in 2014, she described her experience with the Arab Spring revolutions. “So you can go back and argue, should we have helped the people of Libya try to overthrow a dictator who, remember, killed Americans and did a lot of other bad stuff, or we should have been on the sidelines,” she said. It’s clear which option she favored then, boasting, famously, after Moammar Al Qaddafi’s death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

It’s easy to agree with this “democracy good, dictatorship bad” approach, but harder to imagine what it will mean in practice. In Ukraine, for example, trying to thwart Putin could mean buying the line President Petro Poroshenko is trying to sell to the West -- that his opportunistic, thoroughly post-Soviet government is a beacon of freedom and a shield against the Russian plague. Poroshenko’s fondest wish is to get lethal weapons from the U.S., but granting it would probably lead to an even more destructive and deadly phase of the now-frozen conflict. What will the U.S. do if Ukraine is overrun by Russian troops as a result? Neither Clinton nor anyone else in Washington has even discussed this possibility in public.

In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad is obviously a dictator, and he’s tight with Putin to boot. Clinton had urged President Barack Obama to be more resolute in removing him by aiding the Syrian opposition. What if President Clinton uses force more directly against Assad? Will Putin shrink from some kind of military confrontation with the U.S.? I fear not: Russian generals have been itching for such a test for the last few years, since Russia has rearmed and reformed its military. And if the confrontation occurs, consequences will be even more unpredictable than from arming Ukraine.

The Obama administration has espoused the same ideology as Clinton, but it has pulled back from actual conflict with Putin’s Russia. It has probably exhausted its opportunities to keep doing both. Putin has seen the pattern and resolved to remain the first mover, not expecting much American pushback except in words. The next administration will have to act, and there are three distinct courses of action open.

One is to remove the ideological red lines, allow that Russia may hold on to Crimea and Assad may remain in power in Syria, and try to make pragmatic deals with Putin -- for example, siding with him against the Islamic State. Another is to act as forcefully as possible in both Ukraine and Syria, risking a military confrontation with Russia but hoping Putin will be intimidated and desist. The third option is to step up economic sanctions against Russia and wait for the Putin regime to collapse for economic reasons while avoiding a direct show of force.

My fear is that Clinton will choose one of the latter two options or a combination of them. That will enable Putin to step up the anti-Western hysteria in Russia -- and almost force him to pick up the gauntlet as soon as possible, before Russia collapses economically. He has proven many times that he doesn’t have a reverse gear. His recent ultimatum to the U.S. is proof that he’s willing to play the escalation game. A military escalation between Russia and the U.S. could have dramatic consequences for my country -- and also for the U.S. if it allows itself to be dragged into war with such a dangerous rival.

Clinton halfheartedly tried the realpolitik option with Russia during the infamous “reset.” Her heart wasn’t in it, and Putin felt he was being duped rather than offered real carrots to join forces with the U.S. As president, Clinton probably won’t give it another, better try. I wish someone would, though: Russia cannot easily be forced onto a democratic, Western path.

That’s why I would prefer a more flexible leader, equally good with carrot and stick, to lead the U.S. It’s likely, however, that no such leader exists in the current lineup. Trump is unpredictable, which is the worst thing to be. And that’s where I disagree with most of my compatriots.

That was an interesting read on Putin, but I felt like it was criticising Clinton for trying to read Putin at face value, while basically reading her statements at face value. Taking shit about Putin during a campaign is to be expected.

It is but one of many irrationalities and rationality itself could lead to our demise. We could wish for nothing but good faithed altruism to fill our being, but that hasn't evolved probably because it doesn't survive well.

It'll take time, but I think the end of organized religion as a significant influence is happening quicker than most realize.

The demographics don't lie. Religion has been dying a slow death for about 200 years now, although I'd argue that these upcoming final death throes are bound to get really ugly. Those last remaining hardliners are rather batshit, aren't they?

As they die off, however, it'll be one less problem for humanity to deal with.

From a world-historical standpoint, the decline of Christianity in much of the west is more than matched by its growth elsewhere. What looks like the rise of enlightened atheism in the west from one standpoint merely looks to the rest of the world like a decline of one civilization into apostasy and decadence. And that's without even considering Islam.

Germz wrote:From a world-historical standpoint, the decline of Christianity in much of the west is more than matched by its growth elsewhere. What looks like the rise of enlightened atheism in the west from one standpoint merely looks to the rest of the world like a decline of one civilization into apostasy and decadence. And that's without even considering Islam.

But as other countries around the world modernize rapidly, their young populations will also fall prey to the luring proposition of apostasy & decadence. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it does strike me as a rather probable outcome given the interconnected direction that our planet is headed towards.

Germz wrote:South Koreans are admittedly crazy, but something about modernizing has made them flock to Christian priests and preachers in droves.

Is this a permanent phenomenon however? How difficult will it be to keep these gains in a world where atheism is growing rapidly in the West and beginning to emerge in places where it was completely absent a mere 20 years ago?

This current generation of Koreans may be turning to Christianity, but what happens when their children rebel against it much like they did here in the mid-60's?

Dog wrote:We've had atheist societies. Same as the theists. I don't know why some people hold it up as a holy grail. We animals dawg, that's the issue. If indeed that is an issue.

Atheism is not in and of itself a good thing. At the end of the day, preachy people are still assholes. But religion is a lie. And a destructive one at that.

I still think that by the year 2100, religion will be greatly reduced in its influence. Doesn't seem to be a popular theory 'round these here parts, but I think that time and the span of generations does make 98% of societies better off and more peaceful. This, in my opinion, will apply to religion's downfall in the upcoming century.

Dog wrote:Yeah, society does indeed seem to get progressively (with hicups) more peaceful.

Probably of function of more complex societies calling for greater cooperation and of more plenty that creates.

I believe that road towards greater cooperation and communication of knowledge leads to a significantly less religious world, or at the very least one that is much more moderate & nuanced in its beliefs.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, you know? Maybe "progress" scraps civilization and we slide back. Maybe Rome falls and all hell breaks loose. Maybe not.

I just don't see why religion is a significant issue. Do we think we are going to get past greed and envy and lust for power at the same time we get past of tribalism? Is religion culture and religious intolerance a form of tribalism? I think alot of human behaviour is better inderstood if we keep in mind we are primates, with very hierarchical social structures. Our quirks are largely legacies of behaviours that allowed us to survive. Will we outgrow it all and become rational computers? Is that a better thing? Reason is a means. What's the end? Self interest? Something else? Why?

As for lies, what's the truth? We're condensed energy unleashed in the big bang that is dragging on spacetime creating mass and slowing time? We, along with other more or less condensed forms of energy, will (probably) eventually spread out so far appart that we'll freeze into a standstill or (less likely) revert back into a big crunch? We don't even have the faintest notion of what we are in any satisfying sense. Disturbances in some expanding field, as far as we can tell. Don't know and may never know field of what, from what, part of what.

You yourself, ever consider what "you" are? Are your atoms part of the same chain of cause and effect guided by the physical laws of our universe and originating in the big bang? Is there even a "you" in there? Your consciousness? Is that you? What is that? Is it methaphysical? Is it the magical soul outside of the physical world? Nah, we don't belive in that nonesense. It's your neurons firing giving what you perceive as a subjective experience of the world -aka your consciousness. Neurons then are cells made up of atoms like any other and interracting with other atoms and subatomic particles just like anything else in the universe. Is there a you? A small part of the universe in its expansionary course? Is your free will an illusion? Neuroscience seems to suggest it is, even if it's early days in the research.

Do we keep in mind that "truth" in "deciding" on our actions? Is it akin to being religious to do otherwise?

Yeah, I just said "you're space dust transformed into automata, mofo. Who cares about people being religious." As for the matter closer to hand, I don't think religiousity has that great an impact of people's general shitiness or otherwise, that's much more a function of our quirks as primates.

Dog wrote:I'm just trying to enjoy the improbable ride, senate. Same as Greg, really. Just with less hobo killings.

Oh, so you are just having a midlife crisis. Well, you aren't to learn how to live life to fullest through religion, philosophy, or introspective contemplation. The answers you seek can only come from watching City Slickers, and, to a much lesser extent, watching City Slickers 2: The Search For Curly's Gold.

Ok... so that last post was a little mean. But I'm good & drunk now so let's analyze what Dog said.

Dog wrote:Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, you know? Maybe "progress" scraps civilization and we slide back. Maybe Rome falls and all hell breaks loose. Maybe not.

I agree. So far, so good.

I just don't see why religion is a significant issue. Do we think we are going to get past greed and envy and lust for power at the same time we get past of tribalism? Is religion culture and religious intolerance a form of tribalism? I think alot of human behaviour is better understood if we keep in mind we are primates, with very hierarchical social structures. Our quirks are largely legacies of behaviours that allowed us to survive. Will we outgrow it all and become rational computers? Is that a better thing? Reason is a means. What's the end? Self interest? Something else? Why?

Yeesh... at this point you're just making typos to fuck with me, ain't ya? In any case, tribalism IS religion. It's also nationalism if we want to nitpick. So do I think that we should abolish all nations shortly after doing away with religion? Absolutely! Countries are total bullshit in today's multi-national world, and tribalism needs to die.

Or the Bible... Or the Torah! This tragedy, which came out today amongst the onslaught of infuriating news about Islam, reminds me why religion is such a sadistic joke.

As for lies, what's the truth? We're condensed energy unleashed in the big bang that is dragging on spacetime creating mass and slowing time? We, along with other more or less condensed forms of energy, will (probably) eventually spread out so far appart that we'll freeze into a standstill or (less likely) revert back into a big crunch? We don't even have the faintest notion of what we are in any satisfying sense. Disturbances in some expanding field, as far as we can tell. Don't know and may never know field of what, from what, part of what, huh?

Ok, so you're getting a bit technical, but I'll play along. The truth is that we live in a random universe where reason or morals do not exist as a natural law. We have to create them ourselves, and when religion that purports to have created these very ideals does nothing but violate human decency again & again, then I'd say it would be high time we come up with a new set of ideals, innit? The Catholic church, the government of Israel, most of the Middle East... all that shit is abhorrent. Hell, the continent we live on was conquered by a genocide that was supposedly approved by whatever the fuck "God" is supposed to be. Where's the fucking morals in that?! As you said, ours is an uncaring universe. To ignore this reality and our human morals is to tacitly endorse the history of random violence that the Church holds to be some kind of divine destiny.

You yourself, ever consider what "you" are? Are your atoms part of the same chain of cause and effect guided by the physical laws of our universe and originating in the big bang? Is there even a "you" in there? Your consciousness? Is that you? What is that? Is it methaphysical? Is it the magical soul outside of the physical world? Nah, we don't belive in that nonesense. It's your neurons firing giving what you perceive as a subjective experience of the world -aka your consciousness. Neurons then are cells made up of atoms like any other and interracting with other atoms and subatomic particles just like anything else in the universe. Is there a you? A small part of the universe in its expansionary course? Is your free will an illusion? Neuroscience seems to suggest it is, even if it's early days in the research.

Many questions here, but the answer to your overarching query about the nature of man is: abso-fucking-lutely! We are stardust. All that jazz.

Do we keep in mind that "truth" in "deciding" on our actions? Is it akin to being religious to do otherwise?

Granted, religion does not ignore the essence of mankind, but mostly it just explains what crazy theories a nomadic desert people without a clue will uphold as divine truth.

Yeah, I just said "you're space dust transformed into automata, mofo. Who cares about people being religious." As for the matter closer to hand, I don't think religiousity has that great an impact of people's general shitiness or otherwise, that's much more a function of our quirks as primates.

Y'know what? Next time you see a religious person, tell 'em about your whole primate theory. See how that goes over.

We, relatively "widest common denominator" collaborator types, aren't the only types, though (and don't think I still wouldn't stab you in the eye in the right circumstances). We're probably a fairly small minority. We're part of a species of complex social animals, our type likely plays a useful evolutionary role for the species as do other types. Will we eventually take over the world? You need to party in Gatineau and make more illegitimate offspring, boozy. That said, is more of our type desirable? I'd think so but I'm sorta biased in favour of my type. Is it objectively more desirable? I doubt it, as you concurred, it's all random. That has very profound necessary implications.

Why am I talking about this? Because I don't believe religion has that much impact -it's a symptom rather than a cause. The cause is the way our brains have been wired through time and its interractions with the external world. Wired to survive. Not because survival is "good". Simply because what survived is what's here.

It leads me to 2 questions:

1) is religiosity materially impactful on behaviour or rather is behaviour more deeply rooted in the human genome and shaped by the external environment (ie. Is a prick a prick and a saint a saint, regardless of religiosity). I would tend to think so, by in large.

2) a correlate of that question is, if religion does have an impact, is it significantly different than other "irrational beliefs". That leads down a rabbit hole of what is an irrational belief. Nationalism? Any ism? Is it all tribal behaviour? Is that bad? What's the "rational good choice"? Like I stated reason is a means. The end is what you decide. If the universe is random, there is no objective goal. My genes that push me (through a random evolution of the universe) to survive probably lead me to think the ultimate rationality is self interest (promoted through both collaboration and cheating, as appropriate). A game theory like approach to life. Is that the goal? Very rational game theory based decision making? Further, how much magical beliefs do atheists hold on the nature of existance? The star dust seems fairly accepted at least among subsets of humanity. But you can go further. Latest science points to you likely not even existing, boozer. Ain't that a kick in the pants? First, get yanked out from the center of the universe, then may not even exist. I'm not even talking about current unknowables like multiverse theory or greg's computer simulation theory. I'm talking about theory of consciousness. What is you if not a reference to that. If consciousness is not some magical outside of physics thing, then you are automata simply responding to the laws of physics -like any other natural process. More and more studies show that "consciousness" appears as a post-fact selective reconstruction of events -that your decisions are taken subconsciously and you only experience consciousness post fact and experience it as "willfull". Further, when you look at brain scans, you can see certain neural networks firing up more intensely with "conscious" experience, but its not centralized and, more importantly, nothing magical happens. Atoms and subatomic particles interact. When you hear sound, it's a chain reaction between where it's emitted to your neurons firing. Was the experience of sound the neuron, the air molecule movement, the chemical reaction transforming kinetic energy into electrical impulse? It down right blurs the distinction between the internal and the external. Is it religious to view the world in any other terms than those? Are you being a stupid believer in fairytales by believing you exist and have agency?

All kinda interesting I guess, but the most immediate key question is whether religion is much different from and harmful than any other types of beliefs and wacky views humans hold on the world.

We, relatively "widest common denominator" colaborator types, aren't the only types, though (and don't think I still wouldn't stab you in the eye in the right circumstances). We're probably a fairly small minority. We're part of a species of complex social animals, our type likely plays a useful evolutionary role for the species as do other types. Will we eventually take over the world? You need to party in Gatineau and make more illegitimate offspring, boozy. That said, is more of our type desirable? I'd think so but I'm sorta biased in favour of my type. Is it objectively more desirable? I doubt it, as you concurred, it's all random. That has very profound necessary implications.

Why am I talking about this? Because I don't believe religion has that much impact -it's a symptom rather than a cause. The cause is the way our brains have been wired through time and it's interractions with the external world. Wired to survive. Not because survival is "good". Simply because what survived is what's here.

It leads me to 2 questions:

1) is religiosity materially impactful on behaviour or rather is behaviour more deeply rooted in the human genome and shaped by the external environment (ie. Is a prick a prick and a saint a saint, regardless of religiosity). I would tend to think so, by in large.

2) a correlate of that question is, if religion does have an impact, is it significantly different than other "irrational beliefs". That leads down a rabbit hole of what is an irrational belief. Nationalism? Any ism? Is it all tribal behaviour? Is that bad? What's the "rational good choice"? Like I stated reason is a means. The end is what you decide. If the universe is random, there is no objective goal. My genes that push me (through a random evolution of the universe) to survive probably lead me to think the ultimate rationality is self interest (promoted through both collaboration and cheating, as appropriate). A game theory like approach to life. Is that the goal? Very rational game theory based decision making? Further, how much magical beliefs do atheists hold on the nature of existance? The star dust seems fairly accepted at least among subsets of humanity. But you can go further. Latest science points to you likely not even existing, boozer. Ain't that a kick in the pants? First, get yanked out from the center of the universe, then may not even exist. I'm not even talking about current unknowables like multiverse theory or greg's computer simulation theory. I'm talking about theory of consciousness. What is you if not a reference to that. If consciousness is not some magical outside of physics thing, then you are automata simply responding to the laws of physics -like any other natural process. More and more studies show that "consciousness" appears as a post-fact selective reconstruction of events -that your decisions are taken subconsciously and you only experience consciousness post fact and experience it as "willfull". Further, when you look at brain scans, you can see certain neural networks firing up more intensely with "conscious" experience, but its not centralized and, more importantly, nothing magical happens. Atoms and subatomic particles interact. When you hear sound, it's a chain reaction between where it's emitted to your neurons firing. Was the experience of sound the neuron, the air molecule movement, the chemical reaction transforming kinetic energy into electrical impulse? It down right blurs the distinction between the internal and the external. Is it religious to view the world in any other terms than those? Are you being a stupid believer in fairytales by believing you exist and have agency?

All kinda interesting I guess, but the most immediate key question is whether religion is much different from and harmful than any other types of beliefs and wacky views humans hold on the world.

Once we get past religion and nationalism and tribalism and greed and all forms of non cooperative behaviour and upload our brains onto robots to achieve immortality it will be great! Just around the corner, have to fix a detail or two on the way and we're set.

Wait, do we still have sex in that scenario? Why would we? Maybe that's the root problem. Dna growing a body to help it replicate itself. Maybe the drive to survive and replicate is what underpins our "darkest" instincts. Maybe it also underpins our more "cooperative" instincts. Maybe we do away with that drive and engineer something with only desired traits. How do we decide what's desired? We flip a coin, obviously.